Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath (Dover, PA School Board)

[Wondering_Waif]

Mac6yver:

I am in agreement with you. I am neither Catholic or Christian, but I do believe God works through evolution.

In Catholic School I was taught that evolution was ok as long as, at some point, we believed that a soul entered the body. I actually never worried that much about it one way or the other, but looking at flowers and puppies truly helps my faith, and the fact that an oak tree came from an acorn it still amazing to me.

 

[Jennifer123]

MommaKat:

mdzialo1
Intelligent design must be one of your passions. I love what you have written. It is clear and concise and logical. I to am a believer in Intelligent design. I was never able to understand Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I don’t have a citation, maybe I can find one, but I had heard that Darwin never intended for his theory to replace a creationist view. He believed ultimately that God started the plan in motion and evolution took care of the rest. I guess something conveniently forgotten in history.
That being said, evolution is still a theory, not a proven fact, and many, many of the greatest scientists have serious problems with it.

 

[Orogeny]

Jennifer123:

That being said, evolution is still a theory, not a proven fact, and many, many of the greatest scientists have serious problems with it.

Do you have a citation to back up that claim?

Peace

Tim

 

[Jennifer123]

There are plenty of sites, some better than others. I was basing my claim on a seminar my husband attended while in college, my husband has a BS in genetics. One particular talk in the seminar was given by a scientist who discussed problems with evolutionary theory.
There really is nothing keeping us Christians from believing evolution is the best theory we have in determining where man came from as long as we believe God is on charge of the process, but it is still just a theory.

pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm
creator-creation.com/evolution.htm

 

[Faithful_One]

mdzialo1:

The folks in Dover, PA are nuts, more like.

Long-term conditioning (from school and the media) can indeed bias our perception of reality. We have been told for so long that we descended from a common ancestor with the apes that we naturally assume that chimpanzees are more like us than any other animal. This bias influences our expectations in scientific studies.

That’s why there are so many “surprising results” in current DNA research. For example, much has been made of the high similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA. We have heard of a widely publicized study claiming that the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is 98%. Scientists have also recently claimed that “just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice.” So, we are almost as closely related to mice as we are to monkeys! Furthermore, we are also consistently told a chimpanzees’ DNA is more similar to ours than it is to a gorilla or any of the other apes.

The only reason results are surprising is because they aren’t what they were expected to be. The expectations come from logical conclusions based on the theory of evolution. Since the theory of evolution is wrong, the conclusions are wrong, and the results are “surprising.”

Excellent post, mdzialo; keep up the good work. It will not be in vain.
Faithful One

 

[Faithful_One]

mdzialo1:

The folks in Dover, PA are nuts, more like.

… much has been made of the high similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA. We have heard of a widely publicized study claiming that the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is 98%. Scientists have also recently claimed that “just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice.” So, we are almost as closely related to mice as we are to monkeys! Furthermore, we are also consistently told a chimpanzees’ DNA is more similar to ours than it is to a gorilla or any of the other apes.

”

Basically this emphasizes to me quite pointedly that similarity does nothing to prove common origin, but more appropriately similarity reveals a common designer.

Thanks again for the post,

Faithful One

 

[Grandsmoor]

today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=dom…

Televangelist Robertson warns town of God’s wrath

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting “intelligent design” and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential conservative Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has a long record of similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.

…

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.”

“And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there,” he said."

I like that the Reuters headline refers to him as a televangelist. What would be better? charlatan? soothsayer?

 

[Grandsmoor]

What Robertson says is sort of like this: It’s not enough for him to say something like an ordinary person: like: “Well it’s unfortunate that they came to that decision in Pennsylvania but we will keep trying to build a case for the reasonableness of the intelligent design approach to teaching about the origins of the natural world”. But no, Robertson ups the ante of his words by putting the veiled threat of an avenging God who will punish those who for what ever reason did not back the teaching that Robertson promotes. The Pope recently made a statement about intelligent design. His statement was one of reason. He said something like: “Even the theory of evolution does not go against the idea that God is the maker of all matter.” I don’t quite know why Robertson needs to resort to that sort of bullying remark. Perhaps it is that he is not so much a thinker but rather a gang leader who is gathering his troops to kick the butts of any who hold to the theory of evolution. I think Christianity would be better off if he did not say anything publically.franklin gothic medium

 

[David_Paul]

Always astounded when the liberal media goes ballistic over comments such as Robertson’s.

They are boilerplate Protestantism. Go back to the Puritians, the Revolutionary Era, the Civil War, Billy Sunday or go in most any evangelical church today and read or hear the same sort of comments.

Be helpful if our media were not so detached from American history and culture that it finds such comments peculiar.

 

[Orogeny]

Jennifer123:

There really is nothing keeping us Christians from believing evolution is the best theory we have in determining where man came from as long as we believe God is on charge of the process, but it is still just a theory.

Well, I respectfully disagree that “many, many of the greatest scientists have problems with it” in the sense that they have a problem with evolution. There are disagreements regarding the mechanism(s), but very few legitimate scientists have problems with evolution.

Regarding your statement that evolution is “just a theory”. The way you write that implies that you may not understand the weight of the term “theory” in science. It is not just a guess (that would be a hypothesis). Rather it is an explaination for data based on observation and testing. Before something is considered a theory, it goes through vigorous review by the scientific community. If the theory fails to address the data, it is either modified or scrapped. To date, the theory of evolution is very sound, having endured all kinds of challenges and tests over the last 200 or so years and has not been found to be wrong. In fact, as new discoveries are made in many different scientific fields, evolution becomes more entrenched because the new data is just adding more support to the theory.

Peace

Tim

 

[Jennifer123]

I guess we disagree then, not too surprising. :whacky: We should remember however that the theories have not been proven to be without error, regardless of the preponderance of evidence. My beef is just that teaching evolution without the basis of creationism or intelligent design filling in the gaps (which science should be free to admit without the threat of punitive action, i.e. withdrawal of funding, ostracization, etc.) is intellectually dishonest.

Darwin apparently believed God set evolution in motion and to ignore that aspect of his theory (again if true but I happen to think it’s certainly possible) shows a lack of intellectual integrity. :twocents:

 

[Guar_Fan]

Jennifer123:

That being said, evolution is still a theory, not a proven fact

I realize that this is a common argument, but it really is based upon a misunderstanding of the relationship between facts and theories.

Facts are phenomena that have been observed or verified. Note the use of past tense - you can identify a fact only “after the fact”. Theories, on the otherhand, are generalizations based upon facts. They are ideas and as such can not be observed .

We commonly rely on theories in our everyday life. We don’t stick our hand into a fire because of the theory that doing so would burn us. This is a generalization based upon past experiences (or the experience of others).

We rely on past facts, not certain knowledge of future events, to guide our behavior. When we say we know that putting our hand into flames will burn our hand, we are stating a theory… not a fact.

The same relationship between theory and facts exists no matter how exalted (or lowly) the idea. Our theory is that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Its not a fact… because it hasn’t happened. When we say that the sun rises in the east, we are stating a theory not a fact.

 

[cathologos]

A friend suggested that Robertson’s comments have in fact done considerable damage to the argument that Intelligent Design belongs in the science classroom (or in the public classromm at all).

Why? Because what Robertson said to Dover was essentially this: In voting against teaching Intelligent Design, you are voting against God. You have “voted God out of your city.”

In other words, to Robertson, Intelligent Design is about God. Not science – God.

If that is the case, then the legal answer to whether Intelligent Design belongs in the public school curriculum is easy – and the answer is no, under the law.

 

[Faithful_One]

cathologos:

A friend suggested that Robertson’s comments have in fact done considerable damage to the argument that Intelligent Design belongs in the science classroom (or in the public classromm at all).

Why? Because what Robertson said to Dover was essentially this: In voting against teaching Intelligent Design, you are voting against God. You have “voted God out of your city.”

In other words, to Robertson, Intelligent Design is about God. Not science – God.

If that is the case, then the legal answer to whether Intelligent Design belongs in the public school curriculum is easy – and the answer is no, under the law.

The ‘legal’ answer?? Who cares what the legal answer is? Are you aware that the legal answer is also that ABORTION IS MORALLY RIGHT!

The legal answer is most often an abomination to God.

What we want is the CORRECT answer according to the TRUTH OF GOD.
DUH??

THe truth is that this decision is a CONTINUATION of public officials trying to remove God from the classroom. IT STARTED when prayer was removed from the classroom…AND YES, IT HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BRING THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD ON THIS NATION.

Faithful One

 

[Thekla]

Faithful One:

The ‘legal’ answer?? Who cares what the legal answer is? Are you aware that the legal answer is also that ABORTION IS MORALLY RIGHT!

The legal answer is most often an abomination to God.

What we want is the CORRECT answer according to the TRUTH OF GOD.
DUH??

THe truth is that this decision is a CONTINUATION of public officials trying to remove God from the classroom. IT STARTED when prayer was removed from the classroom…AND YES, IT HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BRING THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD ON THIS NATION.

Faithful One

First of all, there’s no need to shout.

Second of all, this was not a decision by public officials but rather the will of the people in Dover, Pennsylvania.

Third of all, in response to your “who cares what the legal answer is,” Susan B. Anthony said, “The religious persecution of the ages has been done under what was claimed to be the command of God.” You may believe that your God is raining His judgment down upon us, but you don’t get to force your views on the rest of us, our children, or our faith.

 

[jman507]

Thekla:

First of all, there’s no need to shout.

Second of all, this was not a decision by public officials but rather the will of the people in Dover, Pennsylvania.

Third of all, in response to your “who cares what the legal answer is,” Susan B. Anthony said, “The religious persecution of the ages has been done under what was claimed to be the command of God.” You may believe that your God is raining His judgment down upon us, but you don’t get to force your views on the rest of us, our children, or our faith.

I see the problem here is that people have a misunderstanding of science. Educators should be honest with what they know and what they don’t know, what is science and what is not and why. If ID hasn’t meet the rigor to be taught as science in a text, but many think it is true, the educator should give the explanation as to why. Otherwise your going to have people think it is science but they don’t want you to know, cause they have their own agenda. Eventually you may very well get enough support in an area that says, we want to teach ID and not evolution.

Now if that is the case I’d say they may very well use your points. This is the will of the people to teach ID & don’t push your ideas of evolution on us.

On a different point, why would God send his wrath on Dover for voting out a school board in favor of a school board that may favor teaching what most other districts teach. I don’t see Dover as worse than any other district.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Petite:

I find it embarrassing that Pat Robertson considers himself to be a God-fearing, Christian. His interpretation of how God reacts to human beings is appalling, to say the least!

Is God REALLY as petty and small minded as Pat Robertson seemed to imply?

Maybe PR thinks God is a Republican ​

 

[MikeWM]

jman507:

I see the problem here is that people have a misunderstanding of science.

Indeed. As I said elsewhere, I think there ought to be a little bit of philosophy of science taught in school, so people can recognise what is science and what isn’t. And ID would be an interesting example in such a class

Mike

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Faithful One:

The ‘legal’ answer?? Who cares what the legal answer is?

Law is one of the few protections we have against each other’s selfishness and egotism - it would be very dangerous to disregard it from impatience with particular laws.​

Are you aware that the legal answer is also that ABORTION IS MORALLY RIGHT!

The legal answer is most often an abomination to God.

What we want is the CORRECT answer according to the TRUTH OF GOD.
DUH??

Unfortunately, people have different correct answers - for some, the correct answer is to enact the laws of Moses into law: this would quite probably make Catholicism a capital offence​

THe truth is that this decision is a CONTINUATION of public officials trying to remove God from the classroom. IT STARTED when prayer was removed from the classroom…AND YES, IT HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BRING THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD ON THIS NATION.

Faithful One

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Isn’t Robertson the fellow who “commanded” a hurricane to miss Virginia Beach?

Cue the Twilight Zone theme please.